Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Waging War in the name of Peace: Is Military Action the Only Solution to Indonesia’s Aceh Problem?

 


Current Situation

 Citing the continued acts of armed violence and terrorism perpetrated by the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), the Indonesian Government declared in May 18, 2003, a six-month state of martial rule throughout the Province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.[1] This ushered in fresh waves of escalated military operations between the government troops and the secessionist group’s military arm, the Angkatan Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (AGAM).  Peace efforts had once again proved futile.  The shaky foundations of peace established in Geneva just over a year ago have since then crumbled. Already, the number of casualties has reached alarming proportions. To date, the military reports that about 230 troopers have been killed, 206  of which were rebels.[2] In July 8, it claimed to have killed 21 GAM fighters in a span of 24 hours.[3]

Amid the intensifying conflict springs new concerns over human rights violations.  Countless are feared caught in the cross-fires. International rights groups have accused both sides of serious rights abuses. The Indonesian Red Cross says it has recovered 176 bodies in civilian clothes. Almost 42,000 civilians have fled their homes for safety. And their numbers are expected to reach 100,000 as the war is expected to rage for months to come. Inevitably, concerns over humanitarian issues are mounting. There have been reports of food and water shortages in one camp housing some 15,000 people.

Once again, violence has prevailed over the province torn by war for more than 27 years. The bloody war between the Indonesian forces and the Free Aceh Movement has been raging since GAM declared independence in 1976. An estimated 10,000 people, mostly civilians, have already been killed. [3] Prior to the Geneva Peace Agreement of 2002, killings were averaging five persons a day. As a negotiator lamented: “Enormous damage had been wreaked on the economic and social life of this resource-rich province. The people of Aceh were weary of the conflict.”[4]

HISTORY

 

Aceh has a special place in Indonesia’s history. It played a significant role in Indonesia’s growth and development as an Islamic nation. Islam gained its first foothold here. Indonesia’s earliest international trading activities took place in its ports as well.

But more than anything else, Aceh is known for its militancy. Under the Dutch rule, the Acehnese began to forge cooperation with other areas in Indonesia and were involved in various national and political movements.[5]

It was pacified by the Dutch colonizers only in the 1930s, shortly before the outbreak of war.[6] In fact, it was one of the strong supporters of the unitary Republic of Indonesia in the early years of the country's independence.

“Beside moral support, Aceh also gave material support to the young Indonesia. In 1946, Acehnese bought national bonds issued by Indonesia's provisional government in Sumatra, with denominations of Rp 100, Rp 500 and Rp 1,000. In addition, the Acehnese also donated cash to help finance the Indonesian government in Yogyakarta to run its operations and open representative offices abroad. In 1949, the Acehnese donated two airplanes, one of which was the famous Seulawah plane that later became a pioneer in the establishment of national flag-carrier Garuda Indonesia. Because of these donations in the early period of Indonesia, first president Sukarno described Aceh as a capital of Indonesia.”[7]

However, a series of political events took place that somehow sowed seeds of violence throughout the province. Aceh’s role in the development of independent Indonesia was recognized by elevating its status into a province. By a decree issued on 1949, Teungku Daud Beureueh was appointed as its governor. However, the council of ministers disregarded the resolution on establishing the Aceh Province. When Indonesia joined the United Nations  and became a republic, the dissolution of the Aceh province was announced. 

Angered by the series of setbacks experienced by the province, Daud Beureuech declared Aceh’s independence from Indonesia. With numerous Acehnese backing this rebellion, it took a while before it was crushed.

To assuage the hatred felt by many Acehnese, the central government gave Aceh the status of special territory in 1959. This decree conferred an unusually high degree of autonomy in religious, educational and cultural matters. A certain level of prosperity  in the province shortly after, but the secessionist sentiment of many Acehnese has never abated. On Dec. 4, 1976, Teungku Hasan M. di Tiro founded the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Not long after, a cycle of violence started to unravel. GAM members, calling itself the Aceh-Sumatra National Liberation Front (ASNLF), attacked police and military installations. The Government responded by declaring Aceh a Military Operation Zone (DOM). The DOM status remained for nine years until it was lifted due to rising protests from human rights activists. It is claimed that the imposition of DOM only worsened the situation in Aceh as it facilitated massive human rights violations by military and police personnel. At least 1,600 cases of human rights violations have been reported during the nine-year period. Deaths and disappearances of at least 760 people have been documented. In sum, a total of six hundred women were reported widowed, 10 raped and 1,960 children orphaned during the military operations. This pattern of abuse and violence, committed by both the military and the rebels eventually prevailed up to this day.

On December 9, 2002 in Geneva, Indonesia and GAM signed a peace agreement ending the 26 years of hostility between the two parties.  The agreement stated that GAM would disarm and in return, the government would withdraw most of its troops and would grant Aceh wide regional autonomy and the Acehnese control over the region’s natural resources and permission to hold elections for an Acehnese legislature. Although this peace agreement was perceived to be the solution to the conflict, it only served its purpose temporarily as the conflict in Aceh was renewed in May of this year.[8]

Indonesian President, Megawati Sukarnoputri sent military troops in Aceh when the separatist movement refused to disarm their weapons. Indonesian government deployed thousands of soldiers and Brimob to fight against the 5000 members of GAM. Although this conflict in Aceh is not as huge as compared to the conflict in East Timor, the stake for Indonesia as a country is high. The conflict is a threat to Indonesia’s stability as a country. Indonesia’s territorial integrity is at risk. Furthermore, GAM is believed to be a murderous and extremist group that is involved in narcotic trades and human rights abuses.[9]

The International Crisis Group listed four possible actions which the Indonesian government could execute. The following were to: negotiate with GAM; buy off GAM; marginalize GAM; or pursue military operations. The Indonesian government opted to pursue its military operations when President Sukarnoputri declared martial law in Aceh after negotiations with GAM failed. GAM did not comply to the May-12 deadline given by the government to disarm and abandon their independence goal given. The government was firm not grant GAM full independence of Aceh. What the government was only willing to grant GAM was an autonomy package that would guarantee Aceh a part of the resource revenues and allow the region to implement its sharia law.[10]

Assessment

 

            The Indonesian government’s decision to declare war against the GAM may have resulted to the need to obliterate the separatist group to end the hostility in Aceh. The failure of the peace agreement and renewed negotiations forced the government to declare war as its last resort. GAM was not willing to concede to the government’s conditions. All that GAM demanded for was independence and nothing else. Had the government succumb to GAM’s condition, the integrity of Indonesia would have been put in jeopardy. The demand to have an independent Aceh should not be considered the sentiment of all the people of Aceh since the ones who are advocating for an independent Aceh are only those who belong to the movement as well as those who support it. The government chose to solve the chaos in Aceh by addressing the underlying cause which is the separatist movement.

            The conflict in Aceh may be considered a threat not only to Indonesia but a threat to the whole South-East Asia. Now that the South-East Asia region finds itself in a period of instability, further turmoil and uprising such as that of Aceh will only encourage other separatist movements to organize themselves and revolt against their respective governments. The need for an urgent solution and end to the hostility in Indonesia is a challenge that Indonesian government faces at the moment.

 

 

 


 



[1] Presidential Decree No. 28/2003 On The Declaration of a State of Emergency with the Status of Martial Law in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province

[2] Aceh War Could Last 5 Months, Create 100,000 Refugees http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-06/17/article05.shtml  

[3] (Indonesia will take years to subdue Aceh Rebellion: Official - Additional Reporting By Kazi Mahmood, IOL Southeast Asia Correspondent http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:eKhorVb1b7sJ:www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-07/08/article07.shtml+aceh+war+in+indonesia&hl=en&ie=UTF-

[4] Wiryono Sastrohandoyo,  The Aceh Conflict: The Long Road to Peace

[5] [http://www.thejakartapost.com/special/os_7_history.asp]

[6] [5] A humane dialogue Printed in The Jakarta Post
Thursday, September 28, 2000

[http://www.thejakartapost.com/special/os_7_news.asp?FileID=20000928.C01]

[7] [http://www.thejakartapost.com/special/os_7_history.asp] Northwestern tip of Sumatra Island.

[8]  Slobodan Lekic, “Indonesia, Acehnese rebels sign pact to end 26-year war,” Associated Press, 

[http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id =79647&owner=(Associated%20Press)&date=20021210125536], 9 December 2002.

 

[9] “The Australian: Big trouble in Little Aceh,”

[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6472161%255E25377,00.html], 22 May 2003.

 

[10] Ibid.

No comments:

Post a Comment